SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I environmental effects of the Project would be reduced to less than significant with proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, though traffic generation may be reduced under this alternative, traffic impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. In particular,as with the proposed Project,the ramp junction impacts for this alternative would be significant and unavoidable under both existing and cumulative conditions. Further, in the long term, these reductions may not be realized if the entire Project site is developed with uses allowed under the current zoning. The Combination Gasoline Station alternative would meet some of the Project objectives,as they related to providing freeway commercial services. However, it would not meet Project objectives related to providing services for trucks and providing a fast-food restaurant to create a regional travel stop. (DEIR,p. 7-11.) In addition, this Alternative would not be economically feasible for the Applicant. Alternative 3 does not comport with Love's business model, which is to develop a travel stop that combines auto and truck fuel services with convenience store and fast-food restaurant services if a project is located outside of Love's home base geographic area. Love's home base geographic area includes the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. There are two reasons Love's will not operate stand-alone restaurants outside of this home base geographic area. First,projects operated outside of this area entail high General and Administrative ("G&A") costs associated with management oversight. Second, a project that excludes or reduces the amount of parking or fuel dispensing pumps would limit Love's ability to effectively use the Project in its marketing efforts to its trucking base. Based on these factors, the Project requires the profit margins of all three uses combined (fuel dispensing area, convenience store, and fast-food restaurant) to achieve economic viability. Also, as noted above,the Applicant specifically chose the location of the Project to fill a coverage gap in the corridor for its trucking customer base, which is an important factor in the economic feasibility of the Project: (EPS Technical Memo,pp. 2, 5.) For the reasons stated above, the Board of Supervisors finds Alternative 3 to be infeasible and rejects it as a viable alternative to the Project. The Project in its current form, moreover, reflects the landowner's considered judgment regarding how to develop its property in light of the realities of the marketplace. The Board believes it is appropriate to give some weight to this judgment. (See Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521 (a "public agency may approve a developer's choice of a project once its significant adverse effects have been reduced to an acceptable level — that is, all avoidable damage has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable").) It is by no means clear, however, that the Board even needs to reach the issue of infeasibility given the potential for full site build-out under Alternative 3 to result in greater traffic levels, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions than would occur under the Project. Despite this uncertainty, though, the Board has rejected Alternative 3 as infeasible in order to fully disclose to the public the bases for its thinking in approving the Project. Alternative 4.,Alternative Use—Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant 1. Description Love's Travel Stops Project 21 Fndngs of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations